Evidence of meeting #39 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, I will come back to you, Ms. Pauzé.
Madam May, are you still there?
Ms. May seems to be having technical difficulties.
You have the floor, Ms. Pauzé. Would you like to speak to BQ‑1?
7:35 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
No, that's why I raised my hand. I wanted to inform the clerk that I am giving my speaking time to Ms. Michaud from here on in. Also, since it's the last time I am going to speak on the bill, I'm just going to say a quick word.
First, I thank the committee for agreeing to at least one of the Bloc Québécois amendments. The fact remains that Canada is making choices that are concerning with this bill, which frankly has no teeth.
In many respects, we are ignoring what economic experts keep saying, which is that this is unacceptable, we need to act, and we have a climate emergency. Is it not the government's role to protect the common good? Will we overcome the challenge of climate change, or will we force it on future generations with only lip service to that responsibility?
It seems to me that the environment is part of the common good, and I find that the Bloc Québécois has kept its word on climate responsibility. It introduced a bill through Ms. Michaud, Bill C‑215, which was, however, rejected. We reached out to the government in this study for the common good, for more transparency, more democracy, more rigour and more accountability.
The votes I cast for the Bloc Québécois were therefore not coloured by compromises that, let's face it, did not significantly improve this bill. As the expression goes, we remained “straight as an arrow”. The must-have elements, which would have made this bill a true climate bill, are unfortunately missing.
I'm a little worried for all of us, for Canada, for the future, and for my children, because Canadians are going to continue to warm up the planet.
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. Pauzé. Once again, I congratulate you on the passage of your amendment.
Ms. Michaud, I invite you to introduce amendment BQ‑1.
7:35 p.m.
The Clerk
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but I have not yet received the form from the whip confirming that Ms. Michaud is replacing Ms. Pauzé.
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Since we did not receive the form, Ms. Pauzé, you have to introduce amendment BQ‑1 yourself.
7:35 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
You should have received the form, Madam Clerk. However, Ms. Pauzé can introduce the amendment in the meantime.
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. Michaud, I would indeed ask that you please proceed as such, because the meeting is coming to an end.
Madam Clerk, when you get the email from Ms. Michaud, could you please let us know?
Ms. Pauzé, you may now introduce amendment BQ‑1.
7:35 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I will read it, and that may give the clerk time to receive the form.
We want to define the word “commissioner”. The amendment reads:commissioner means the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development appointed under subsection 15.1(1) of the Auditor General Act. (Commissaire)
We want to define that word because it comes up in the bill. It's important to determine who we are talking about.
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
The vote is called on BQ‑1.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
We'll go to G-1.
Ms. Saks.
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for hanging in there.
I'm pleased to introduce an amendment to clause 2 of the bill. This amendment adds a definition of “Indigenous knowledge”, which means “the Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada.”
Other amendments propose that indigenous knowledge be considered at various stages in the planning and reporting on our progress to net zero. This amendment provides a definition for that term wherever it is used throughout the act.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Chair.
This government talks about the UN declaration, but this appears to be very symbolic. There was no conversation and there were no indigenous witnesses. Of course, there were some briefs. To throw in terms at this stage that don't have appropriate testimony.... Although it's important, I want to highlight the complete lack of consultation in spite of the words to the contrary.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 0)
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The ruling I'm making at this moment applies to PV-1 and BQ-2, as they are identical.
The amendment seeks to make a substantive modification to add the year 2025 as a milestone year in the interpretation clause. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 773:
The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill unless other amendments have been adopted that would warrant amendments to the interpretation clause. In addition, an amendment to the interpretation clause of a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading must always relate to the bill and may neither exceed the scope of nor be contrary to the principle of the bill.
In my opinion, the proposed amendment is a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause. Since no amendment to the bill has been adopted to justify amending the definition of “milestone year”, I rule PV-1 inadmissible, and BQ-2 inadmissible at the same time.
Go ahead, Madam Clerk.
7:40 p.m.
The Clerk
I just wanted to confirm that Madam Michaud has been substituted in now.
7:40 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's no more complicated than that. We're working on the definitions.
We wanted to define the Paris Agreement, simply because the bill mentions it. In our view, it's pretty important to do that, since it's mentioned in terms of meeting the 2030 targets. All nationally determined contributions also fall under the Paris Agreement. So we just want to define the Paris Agreement.
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. Michaud.
The vote is called on BQ‑3.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
Shall clause 2 carry?
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Madam Thivierge.
I don't know what I'd do without our legislative clerk.
Shall clause 2 as amended carry?
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
On division.
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to on division)
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Now we go to the preamble.
The amendments proposed to the preamble start on page 112, so we go back to PV-37. Unfortunately, PV-37 is inadmissible as no amendment to the bill to justify amending the preamble has been adopted.
7:45 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt.
I believe it was withdrawn by unanimous consent.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It was withdrawn. I even wrote that on PV-37 in my own handwriting and didn't see that.
Madam Thivierge, thank you for mentioning that.
We go now to G-17.
Mr. Baker.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to introduce an amendment to add a new paragraph to the preamble of the act. This paragraph states that the Government of Canada has international and national climate change reporting obligations and that it “wishes to improve transparency and accountability” by increasing “domestic reporting obligations”.
This amendment situates the planning and reporting obligations introduced by this act in the broader ecosystem of domestic and international obligations to plan or report on our progress in addressing climate change.